Study: Blue light impairs the eye's ability to distinguish fine detail most

ggiuliomagnifico about 6 hours ago 19 commentsRead Article on research.uga.edu

ZH version is available. Content is displayed in original English for accuracy.

⚡ Community Insights

Discussion Sentiment

33% Positive

Analyzed from 738 words in the discussion.

Discussion (19 Comments)Read Original on HackerNews

vanderZwan•about 2 hours ago

> Many factors, like light scattering and imperfections in the eye’s optics, keep light from coming into sharp focus on the retina, Buabeng said.

> The study also found that iris pigmentation influenced how far apart the two light points needed to be before viewers could distinguish them as separate points. Using a standardized iris color chart, researchers classified each participant’s eye color before analyzing the results. Participants with lighter-colored irises, particularly blue eyes, experienced greater light scatter than those with darker brown irises.

Sounds like the research took a next step beyond previous studies on the same subject. You know, basically how science is supposed to work. Something anyone giving a flippant reply here could have figured out if they actually had read the article.

keymasta•about 1 hour ago

I've had some light-sensitivity issues for as long as a remember. So I always get glasses with transitions. On computer though I've always been using flux [0] since it came out. I know that now a lot of OSes are supporting some kind of night mode, but I really like how there are some different parameters you can adjust in flux. And it's free.

[0] https://justgetflux.com/

bitgeist•7 minutes ago

I will always upvote a comment supporting f.lux given the chance to. Fantastic piece of software.

steve_taylor•about 2 hours ago

I'm trying to get my hands on some decently high wattage (100W ideally) incandescent bulbs because it's really been bugging me lately that while I can still focus just fine, I have trouble making out details and some colours in artificial lighting. I've come to the conclusion that there's really no substitute for light generated from heat.

brookst•about 1 hour ago

It hugely depends on the quality of the light. Look at CRI (and the newer, better TM-30). Low quality LED lighting is just terrible, the room appears light but colors and details are poor.

bushwart•about 2 hours ago

I have some LED bulbs at home but I use G9 halogens in either an E14 or an E27 adapter for the places where light quality is important to me. I tried a number of so-called "full spectrum" LED bulbs but I don't find the light they produce quite as satisfying as my halogens.

mkl•about 4 hours ago

Isn't this well known? The human retina has fewer blue-sensitive cone cells, and very few in the fovea, which sees the sharpest details: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cone_cell#Distribution

bunderbunder•14 minutes ago

From the paper's abstract (emphasis mine): "Wavelength influences multiple aspects of visual performance, yet its role in spatial resolution remains incompletely understood due to confounding factors such as luminance differences, chromatic aberration, and intraocular scatter."

They then did some modeling to estimate how well the results could be explained by scattering, chromatic aberration and, neural sampling (the cone cell density factor that you mentioned). They concluded that none of them could completely explain the observed results, but their results seemed to suggest the bulk of the effect is due to optical effects, with neurological factors as a secondary cause.

Refining existing knowledge by examining phenomena in more detail is how science should be done. The pressure to focus on discovering entirely new things is a major cause of the replication crisis.

HumblyTossed•7 minutes ago

Yeah. I worked in the optical industry to pay for college. That was decades ago and one of the Drs I worked with and I had discussions on this. It was interesting at the time as I knew very little about optics when I started.

dinfinity•16 minutes ago

Well, the title here at HN implies something else than the study shows.

If blue light actually impaired vision, that would be very notable. It would mean that removing the blue 'channel' for an RGB image would improve acuity. This is not what the study showed, however.

It is mainly just the basic fewer cones bit you mentioned. Which, btw, is easily experienced if you ever look from a distance at neon or led signs that only emit blue light. They'll persistently look out of focus when compared to their surroundings.

mrngld•about 2 hours ago

I get that the guy needed to write a paper on something to get his PhD (in psychology, which might explain some of this as well, I thought standards were a little higher in the hard sciences), but don't know why it deserves a high profile. At least, based on merit.

snarfy•about 1 hour ago

Blue Blocker glasses were a thing since the 80s

madaxe_again•about 2 hours ago

I certainly thought so. I have astigmatism and I cannot for the life of me read blue LED/neon signs at any reasonable distance at night. Any other colour, no problem. Blue is just a blurry mess.

HPsquared•about 3 hours ago

Blue light also probably has more dispersion (aka chromatic aberration) .. I wonder how the eye deals with chromatic aberration, if we just filter it out by processing or if the system doesn't really suffer from it? Edit: or perhaps that's the reason why we don't have high resolution in blue.

Simulacra•about 3 hours ago

Interesting, i've read in the past that blue lights are used sometimes in places where they want to dissuade people from intravenous drug use because the blue light makes it harder to find a vein. I wonder if that qualifies as fine detail.

mister_mort•about 2 hours ago

The hospital toilets in Melbourne definitely have that setup. It was weird seeing basically every surface as just a shade of blue and nothing else.

I do wonder - now that most people have a phone with a flashlight - would not the druggies illuminate their own arms with white light and not be too bothered?

slim•about 4 hours ago

Ils this new research ? Why is it for me common knowledge ? Everyone knows blue light looks blurry because blue retina receptors have lower definition

Neywiny•about 2 hours ago

https://xkcd.com/2501/

TwoFerMaggie•about 3 hours ago

https://xkcd.com/1053/